Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026 07 23 Ad Hoc Charter Review Regular Meeting Minutes AD HOC CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2026 CITY HALL – COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434, WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Art Gallo called the Regular Meeting of the Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee to order Thursday, July 23, 2026 at 5:31 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call: Chairperson Art Gallo, present Vice-Chairperson Eddie Rivera, present Committee Member David Bear, present Committee Member Joseph Dionne, absent Committee Member Jean Hovey, present Committee Member Louie Hilal, present Committee Member Philip Kaprow, present Also present: City Attorney Anthony Garganese Interim City Clerk Tristin Tarrant The Committee held a moment of silence followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS 100) Not Used No discussion INFORMATIONAL AGENDA 200) Not Used No discussion PUBLIC INPUT Chairperson Gallo opened “Public Input”. Kevin McCann, Winter Springs resident, presented two proposed Charter amendments for the committee's future consideration.1 Mr. McCann’s first proposed amendment is that a supermajority vote would be required before the City may sell or transfer city-owned land or conservation easement entrusted to the city. Second, Mr. McCann proposed the same supermajority requirement before the City annexes property within the Seminole County rural boundary or extends the city’s water, 1 Attached at the end of these minutes CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA AD HOC CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES – JULY 23, 2026 PAGE 2 OF 5 wastewater, or other urban utility services into that protected area. Mr. McCann cited historic regional commitments as the basis for these proposals. Mr. McCann noted that the proposed amendments are not intended to be addressed at the current meeting and encouraged the committee to follow City Attorney Garganese’ s lead on the scheduled work. Gina Shafer, Winter Springs resident, encouraged greater public attendance and shared a post she put out on social media to the committee. Mrs. Shafer additionally requested the committee consider district-based representation with commissioners elected by district rather than at-large, noting that the current structure can make it difficult for residents to identify and reach a single accountable representative. Mrs. Shafer also suggested the committee examine the rule that allows committee members to simultaneously serve on multiple boards, suggesting it may discourage broader civic participation. Linda Freebun, Winter Springs resident, expressed the opposing view, advocating for the elimination of districts in favor of at-large commissioner elections, arguing that the most pressing City issues affect the entire city rather than individual districts. Mrs. Freeburn also proposed requiring mandatory town halls for the mayor and commissioners to improve public engagement and transparency. Chairperson Gallo closed “Public Input”. CONSENT AGENDA 300) Approval of the Minutes: Thursday, June 18, 2026 Ad-Hoc Charter Review Committee Orientation Meeting Minutes MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION MADE BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HOVEY. SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HILAL. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BEAR (AYE); GALLO (AYE); HILAL (AYE); HOVEY (AYE); KAPROW (AYE); RIVERA (AYE) PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA 400) Not Used No discussion. REGULAR AGENDA 500) City Charter Review (Articles 1-4) Prior to substantive review of the Charter articles, Chairperson Gallo offered opening remarks establishing committee expectations. The committee reached consensus on the following operational matters: all discussions shall be conducted with respect and civility; individual speaking time shall be reasonable; a soft stop of 7:30 PM would be observed at each meeting, with a reminder by the clerk at 7:20 PM, the committee would then assess whether to continue or adjourn; public input would be accepted both at the opening and close of each meeting; the committee serves in an advisory capacity only; and the committee's final report deadline to the City Commission is November 2, 2027, with any proposed referendum being on the of November 7, 2028 ballot. Chairperson Gallo proposed a few future meeting dates for committee members to review before the August meeting. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA AD HOC CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES – JULY 23, 2026 PAGE 3 OF 5 Discussion ensued regarding the final report formatting with specific questions being asked on how votes and minority opinion would be relayed. City Attorney Garganese explained the proposed changes, direction and votes will be memorialized within the final report . If a motion has three descending votes, they will be captured and the reason for those votes with be included. Once the final report is drafted the committee will then approve the draft report for recommendation to the Commission. Moving into the review process, City Attorney Garganese presented a comparative worksheet placing the Winter Springs City Charter alongside the Model City Charter, Ninth Edition, to help guide the committee's substantive review of Articles I through IV. Chairperson Gallo began requesting the Committee look at adding a preamble to the city and it was the consensus of the committee that it would be brought to a later meeting for discussion. Transitioning into Articles I & II, City Attorney Garganese noted there is no comparable provision in the Model City Charter for the city’s first two articles. Questions whether the committee might consider reformatting the early articles to closely mirror the Model City Charter's structure were asked by Chairperson Gallo. City Attorney Garganese noted that the articles are substantially aligned and advised that combining or renaming articles could create confusion for the voters. City Attorney Garganese recalled that the 2010 Charter Review Committee had proposed simplifying Article II: Territorial Boundaries to reference state law, but that the voters did not approve the change. The committee agreed to defer any structural editorial discussions to a later time. During Article II discussion, Committee Member Bear raised the issue of the Seminole County rural boundary in the context of the earlier public input noting extensive experience with conservation advocacy in east Seminole County. He explained that the rural boundary functions as a development line under which the County maintains land use authority even over annexed land and expressed concern that ongoing legislative efforts in Tallahassee aimed at preempting county home rule over rural boundaries. Committee Member Bear read ballot language for a Charter amendment the City of Oviedo recently approved, Ordinance 1774, which would require a supermajority vote to approve any annexation within the Seminole County rural boundary as reference and for consideration. Committee Member Bear expressed strong support for Winter Springs adopting a comparable provision and suggested it could be incorporated into Article 2.03 on annexation procedures, potentially alongside Mayor McCann's proposal regarding utility extensions. Committee Member Kaprow questioned whether the Charter could be written to require a public referendum rather than only a supermajority vote before annexation into the rural boundary could occur. Arguing that placing the decision directly with voters would be more resilient against state legislative preemption. Vice-Chairperson Rivera asked for clarification on the current requirements the city needs to follow when annexing or changing the density within the rural boundary. City Attorney Garganese responded that the County’s comprehensive plan and zoning code would need to be followed. The committee reached consensus to place both the rural boundary annexation issue and the Charter preamble discussion on the August meeting agenda. City Attorney Garganese stated he was confident that imposing a supermajority requirement on itself was within the city's authority but noted the referendum question would require additional legal research. Moving on to Article III: Powers of the City, City Attorney Garganese explained that Winter Springs Section 3.01 closely mirrors Model City Charter Section 1.01, with an additional subparagraph (b) preserving broad municipal home rule authority specific to Florida law. He noted that Model City Charter Sections 1.02 (Construction) and 1.03 (Intergovernmental Relations) were not necessary in the Winter Springs Charter because the home rule provision and Florida's Interlocal Cooperation Act already address those subjects. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA AD HOC CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES – JULY 23, 2026 PAGE 4 OF 5 Chairperson Gallo proposed adding language to Section 3.01 that clarified all city powers are vested in the commission as the governing body to include the mayor. City Attorney Garganese recommended that discussion be deferred to Article IV, as Section 3.01 is intended to broadly encompass all city powers—administrative, executive, and legislative—not just those of the governing body, and inserting such language could inadvertently limit the city's powers. MOVE TO KEEP ARTICLE III AS IS. MOTION MADE BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KAPROW. SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HOVEY. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BEAR (AYE); GALLO (AYE); HILAL (AYE); HOVEY (AYE); KAPROW (AYE); RIVERA (AYE) City Attorney Garganese introduced Article IV and noted a key structural difference that the Model City Charter only references a city council while Winter Springs has a governing body. Explaining that under the existing Charter, the Mayor is a member of the governing body but not of the Commission and holds no regular vote. The mayor may break a tie, retains veto authority over ordinances subject to a supermajority override, and serves as presiding officer. The committee engaged in substantial discussion on the composition and role of the mayor. Committee Member Hovey, as former Commissioner, expressed openness to examining models where the mayor is either elected voting member of the commission or is chosen among the elected commissioners. Committee Member Kaprow argued in favor of retaining the current structure, describing the mayor's role as analogous to a checks-and-balance executive and cautioned that a voting mayor who is also beholden to the commission, could create adversarial dynamics with city staff. Mayor Kevin McCann, invited by the committee to offer his perspective, stated his opposition to two structural changes: a rotating mayoral model, which he argued compromises the steadiness of intergovernmental relationships essential to the position; and any expansion of mayoral authority toward a strong-mayor model. Mayor McCann described the present arrangement as providing useful independence, allowing him to serve as a liaison between t he commission and city staff the ethical conflict that would arise from being both a voting member and an active administrator. Brief discussion followed on the change in structure if the mayoral positions became a seat holding a vote from questions ask by Committee Member Rivera. Committee Member Hilal expressed the desire to know the Mayor’s stance on issues through a clear voting record and questioned whether the ability to veto and break ties holds a disproportionate influence on the mayor. Mayor McCann and some Committee members expressed a difference in opinion to Committee Member Hilal’s view. The committee determined that the composition of the governing body, including the question of mayoral voting rights, district versus at-large elections, and related structural matters, requires dedicated discussion at the next meeting. It was agreed that the full Article IV governing body discussion would continue at the August meeting and would likely extend beyond a single session. Brief discussion ensued on when the preamble and rural boundary discussion would return and it was decided those would stay flexible depending on how the August meeting went. The committee further requested that staff post notice on the City's website and social media platforms informing the public of the topics that would be discussed at the next meeting and encouraging public input. PUBLIC INPUT Chairperson Gallo opened “Public Input.” Gina Shafer, Winter Springs resident, reiterated her concern that many residents feel disengaged from local government and expressed general support for reconsidering the current governing July 2026 1 PROPOSAL TO PROTECT PUBLIC LAND AND THE RURAL BOUNDARY Submitted to the Winter Springs Charter Review Committee Two proposed Charter safeguards: 1. Supermajority protection for City real estate and conservation interests 2. Supermajority approval for annexation of Rural Boundary land or the extension of City water, wastewater, or other urban utility services to serve property within that area Prepared by Mayor Kevin McCann July 2026 July 2026 2 Executive Summary I respectfully request that the Charter Review Committee recommend two separate amendments to the City Charter. The first would require four affirmative votes before the City may dispose of City owned real property or release or materially weaken a conservation easement or similar preservation interest. The second would require four affirmative votes before the City may annex property located wholly or partially within the Seminole County Rural Area or extend City water, wastewater, or other urban utility services to serve property within that area. These proposals would not prohibit future action. They would require broader agreement before the City makes decisions that may be permanent, difficult to reverse, and consequential for future generations. Public mandate At the November 2024 election, approximately 84 percent of Seminole County voters supported supermajority protection for County Natural Lands, and approximately 82 percent supported supermajority protection for the County Rural Area. More than four out of every five voters supported each measure. 1. Purpose and Requested Charter Safeguards 1. Require a supermajority vote before the City may sell, convey, transfer, exchange, donate, or otherwise dispose of City owned real property, or release, extinguish, relocate, subordinate, or materially weaken a conservation easement or similar land preservation interest held or controlled by the City. 2. Require a supermajority vote before the City may annex property located wholly or partially within the Seminole County Rural Area or extend City water, wastewater, or other urban utility services to serve property within that area. For both amendments, “supermajority” should mean the affirmative vote of at least four of the five members of the City Commission who are entitled to vote. 2. Why These Decisions Deserve a Higher Threshold Some governmental decisions are routine and appropriately decided by a simple majority. The permanent sale of public land, the release of a conservation easement, the annexation of Rural Boundary property, and the extension of urban utility services into the Rural Boundary are not routine decisions. They may permanently affect community character, environmental resources, infrastructure, traffic, public finances, and the expectations of residents who relied upon earlier public commitments. A four vote requirement preserves the ability to act when circumstances justify it, but prevents a lasting decision from being made by the narrowest possible three to two majority. 3. Protection of City Real Property and Conservation Interests City owned real estate is held for the benefit of the public. Parks, open space, conservation property, stormwater property, public facilities, and other City assets may have been acquired through taxpayer funding, grants, donations, development agreements, or long term community planning. July 2026 3 Conservation easements deserve particular protection because their purpose is to preserve land and environmental resources over time. Once a conservation easement is released or materially weakened, the conservation value and public expectations attached to it may never be recovered. The Former Winter Springs Golf Course The former Winter Springs Golf Course is an important example. Although the City does not own the underlying golf course property, it holds a perpetual conservation easement over much of the property. The easement was originally granted in 1984 and later amended. Previous City actions have recognized the easement as being of significant public importance to Winter Springs and its residents. An interest of this magnitude should not be released, extinguished, relocated, subordinated, or materially reduced through a narrow three to two vote. A supermajority requirement would help ensure careful review, full public notice, and broad agreement before any permanent change is made. 4. Protection of the Seminole County Rural Boundary The Seminole County Rural Boundary reflects a decades long public commitment to protect the eastern rural area from incompatible urbanization. County voters placed Rural Area protections in the County Charter in 2004 and strengthened them in 2024 by requiring four of five County Commissioners to remove property from the Rural Area. In November 2024, approximately 82 percent of voters approved the Rural Area supermajority requirement. The companion Natural Lands amendment received approximately 84 percent support. These overwhelming margins demonstrate broad countywide agreement that protected land should not be altered without substantial consensus. Historical Intergovernmental Commitments Winter Springs also has a longstanding history of recognizing the need to protect the eastern rural area. During the 1998 Battle Ridge litigation and settlement process, Winter Springs, Oviedo, Seminole County, property owners, and other parties negotiated protections for a defined eastern area. Official City records describe a proposed settlement area “where no one will annex.” The negotiations also contemplated restrictions on development and the extension of urban services without intergovernmental agreement. The available record should not presently be characterized as proof of a permanent, general three party memorandum of understanding prohibiting every annexation within the modern Rural Boundary. Winter Springs records indicate that the City sought broader joint planning protections, while Oviedo later proceeded with a separate agreement involving Seminole County. The final executed settlement, maps, amendments, and related agreements should therefore be obtained and reviewed by the City Attorney. Even with that legal qualification, the historical record clearly demonstrates a longstanding regional recognition that the eastern rural area deserved meaningful protection and that annexation and urban services should not be extended into it without broad agreement. Existing Winter Springs Policy Winter Springs later formalized its own commitment. In 2006, the City adopted a policy prohibiting voluntary and involuntary annexations east of DeLeon Street. The restriction was also incorporated into the City Comprehensive Plan. City planning records state that the policy was intended to protect the rural and environmentally sensitive Black Hammock area from future urbanization. July 2026 4 The proposed Charter amendment would elevate and strengthen that existing policy. It would help prevent a future Commission from first weakening an ordinance or Comprehensive Plan policy and then approving an annexation or extending urban utility services through a narrow three to two vote. Extending City water or wastewater service to property within the Rural Boundary can have much the same practical effect as annexation because it makes higher density and more intensive development possible. Annexation and the extension of urban utility services should therefore require the same broad agreement. The amendment would also apply to Rural Area property that may not be captured solely by the DeLeon Street line. 5. Proposed Charter Amendment One Protection of City Real Property and Conservation Interests The following language is offered as a starting point for review and final drafting by the City Attorney: Section ____. Disposition of City Real Property and Conservation Interests A. Supermajority required. The City shall not sell, convey, exchange, donate, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any real property or material interest in real property owned by the City without the affirmative vote of at least four fifths of the full authorized voting membership of the City Commission. B. Conservation interests. The City shall not release, extinguish, terminate, materially amend, materially relocate, subordinate, or otherwise materially reduce any conservation easement, preservation easement, restrictive covenant, or similar land preservation interest held or controlled by the City without the affirmative vote of at least four fifths of the full authorized voting membership of the City Commission. C. Public finding. Before taking an action governed by this section, the City Commission shall make a written finding explaining why the action serves a substantial public purpose and why the property or conservation interest is no longer required in its existing form. D. Implementing ordinance. The City Commission may adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for appraisals, environmental review, public notice, and public hearings. Any exception for routine utility, drainage, access, right of way, title correction, or temporary construction instruments must be narrowly defined and may not materially impair the public use, conservation value, recreational value, or economic value of the affected property. E. Construction. This section shall be interpreted broadly to protect the public’s interest in City property and land preservation interests, to the fullest extent permitted by law. Proposed Ballot Summary for Amendment One SUPERMAJORITY APPROVAL FOR DISPOSITION OF CITY LAND AND CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Shall the City Charter be amended to require at least four affirmative votes of the five City Commissioners before the City may sell, convey, exchange, donate, or otherwise dispose of City owned real property, or release, extinguish, or materially reduce a conservation easement or similar land preservation interest held or controlled by the City, subject to limited exceptions for routine instruments that do not materially impair the property? July 2026 5 6. Proposed Charter Amendment Two Annexation and Extension of Utilities within the Seminole County Rural Area The following language is offered as a starting point for review and final drafting by the City Attorney: Section ____. Annexation and Extension of Utilities within the Seminole County Rural Area A. Supermajority required for annexation. No ordinance, resolution, interlocal agreement, request, consent, or other action of the City Commission that would annex or cause the annexation into the City of any property located wholly or partially within the Seminole County Rural Area shall be approved without the affirmative vote of at least four fifths of the full authorized voting membership of the City Commission. B. Supermajority required for extension of utilities. No ordinance, resolution, interlocal agreement, utility service agreement, capital improvement, expenditure, request, consent, approval, or other action of the City Commission that would extend, authorize, approve, or provide City water, wastewater, or other urban utility services to serve property located wholly or partially within the Seminole County Rural Area shall be approved without the affirmative vote of at least four fifths of the full authorized voting membership of the City Commission. C. Rural Area defined. For purposes of this section, the Seminole County Rural Area means the property located within the Rural Area and Rural Boundary established by Section 5.2 of the Seminole County Home Rule Charter and depicted in the official map and legal description in effect on the effective date of this section. The definition shall also include property subsequently added to or included within the Rural Area. D. Application. The annexation requirement shall apply to voluntary annexations, involuntary annexations, annexations accomplished through interlocal agreements, and any City sponsored or City supported special act or other annexation mechanism, to the fullest extent permitted by law. The utility requirement shall apply regardless of whether the property is annexed and regardless of the mechanism used to authorize, finance, construct, connect, or provide the service. E. Purpose. The extension of urban utility services can enable higher density or more intensive development and may have substantially the same practical effect as annexation. This section is intended to ensure that neither annexation nor the extension of urban utility services into the Rural Area occurs without broad agreement. F. Other legal requirements. Nothing in this section independently changes the zoning, future land use designation, density, intensity, development rights, or regulatory authority applicable to any property. All annexations and utility extensions remain subject to state law, the Seminole County Home Rule Charter, and other applicable legal requirements. A. Supermajority required. No ordinance, resolution, interlocal agreement, request, consent, or other action of the City Commission that would annex or cause the annexation into the City of any property located wholly or partially within the Seminole County Rural Area shall be approved without the affirmative vote of at least four fifths of the full authorized voting membership of the City Commission. B. Rural Area defined. For purposes of this section, the Seminole County Rural Area means the property located within the Rural Area and Rural Boundary established by Section 5.2 of the Seminole County Home Rule Charter and depicted in the official map and legal description in effect on the effective date of this section. The definition shall also include property subsequently added to or included within the Rural Area. C. Application. This requirement shall apply to voluntary annexations, involuntary annexations, annexations accomplished through interlocal agreements, and any City sponsored or City supported special act or other annexation mechanism, to the fullest extent permitted by law. D. Other legal requirements. Nothing in this section independently changes the zoning, future land use designation, density, intensity, development rights, or regulatory authority applicable to any property. All July 2026 6 annexations remain subject to state law, the Seminole County Home Rule Charter, and other applicable legal requirements. Proposed Ballot Summary for Amendment Two SUPERMAJORITY APPROVAL FOR ANNEXATION OR EXTENSION OF UTILITIES WITHIN THE RURAL BOUNDARY Shall the City Charter be amended to require at least four affirmative votes of the five City Commissioners before the City may annex land located wholly or partly within the Seminole County Rural Area, or extend City water, wastewater, or other urban utility services to serve property within that area, while leaving other annexations and utility decisions subject to existing voting requirements and applicable law? Shall the City Charter be amended to require at least four affirmative votes of the five City Commissioners before the City may annex any land located wholly or partly within the Seminole County Rural Area as it existed on the amendment’s effective date, including land later added to that area, while leaving other annexations subject to existing voting requirements and all annexations subject to applicable law? 7. Why the Measures Should Be Separate Ballot Questions The two proposals address distinct governmental decisions: • The disposition of City real estate and conservation interests. • The annexation of property within the Seminole County Rural Area and the extension of City water, wastewater, or other urban utility services to serve property within that area. Separate questions would allow residents to evaluate and vote on each protection independently. They would also reduce the risk that disagreement with one proposal could affect the other. 8. Supporting Document Request Before final Charter language is recommended, the Committee should request that the City Attorney and City Clerk locate and review: • The final executed Recommendations, Stipulations and Settlement Agreement associated with the Battle Ridge proceedings. • DOAH Case Nos. 98-3788GM, 98-3789GM, and 98-3790GM. • The November 1998 revisions and the map identified as Exhibit C. • Any subsequent amendments, court orders, interlocal agreements, joint planning agreements, or Comprehensive Plan provisions implementing or superseding those commitments. • The current legal descriptions and maps defining the Seminole County Rural Area and the City’s DeLeon Street annexation restriction. This review should determine the precise legal status and continuing effect of the historical commitments and ensure that the proposed Charter language is consistent with applicable state law and the County Charter. 9. Requested Committee Action 1. Discuss both proposed protections at a public meeting. July 2026 7 2. Receive legal guidance from the City Attorney regarding Charter placement, definitions, exceptions, legal descriptions, and compliance with state law. 3. Recommend two separate Charter amendments to the City Commission. 4. Recommend that, after appropriate legal and public review, the City Commission submit both amendments to the voters of Winter Springs. 10. Conclusion Requiring four affirmative votes does not prevent the City from acting. It simply requires a higher level of agreement before the City makes a decision that future residents may not be able to reverse. These protections would help safeguard public land, conservation interests, the former Winter Springs Golf Course conservation easement, the Seminole County Rural Boundary, and the longstanding commitments made to the residents of Winter Springs. They would ensure that neither annexation nor the extension of urban utility services could be used to open Rural Boundary land to higher density development without broad agreement. They would place lasting safeguards in the Charter rather than leaving them dependent upon the composition of a future Commission. Legal Drafting Note This proposal is intended for policy discussion. The City Attorney should prepare or approve all final Charter text, ballot titles, ballot summaries, definitions, exceptions, and implementing provisions. The City Attorney should also confirm applicable statutory ballot word limits and election procedures before either measure is placed before voters. July 2026 8 Selected Supporting Records Seminole County: Home Rule Approved Seminole County Supervisor of Elections: 2024 General Election Results Winter Springs Ordinance 2006-02: Annexations East of DeLeon Street Prohibited Winter Springs records concerning annexation into the East Rural Area Winter Springs 1998 Special Meeting records concerning Battle Ridge negotiations Winter Springs 1999 records concerning proposed joint planning protections Note: The election percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percent for public communication. Final presentation material s may include exact certified percentages if desired.